Efficacy and safety of autotransfusion versus both suction drainage and no drainage in TKA .
This report has been verified
by one or more authors of the
original publication.
OrthoEvidence Journal (OE Journal) - ACE Report
OE Journal. 2016;4(22):10 BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2016 Aug 1;17:142Fifteen randomized controlled trials were included in this meta-analysis and systematic reviewing comparing the efficacy and safety of autologous blood transfusion systems to both closed suction drainage and no drain use. Results on allogenic blood transfusion rate demonstrated a significantly lower rate with the use of autologous blood transfusion systems compared to closed suction drainage, but not when compared to no drain use. Hemoglobin level, the length of stay, and wound infection rate were not significantly different between either the use of autologous blood transfusion systems and closed suction drainage, or autologous blood transfusion systems and no drainage.
Were the search methods used to find evidence (original research) on the primary question or questions stated?
Was the search for evidence reasonably comprehensive?
Were the criteria used for deciding which studies to include in the overview reported?
Was the bias in the selection of studies avoided?
Were the criteria used for assessing the validity of the included studies reported?
Was the validity of all of the studies referred to in the text assessed with use of appropriate criteria (either in selecting the studies for inclusion or in analyzing the studies that were cited)?
Were the methods used to combine the findings of the relevant studies (to reach a conclusion) reported?
Were the findings of the relevant studies combined appropriately relative to the primary question that the overview addresses?
Were the conclusions made by the author or authors supported by the data and or analysis reported in the overview?
How would you rate the scientific quality of this evidence?
Ja = 1
Ungewiss = 0.5
Nicht relevant = 0
Nein = 0
Die Bewertung der Berichtskriterien bewertet die Transparenz, mit der die Autoren die methodischen und studienspezifischen Merkmale der Studie in der Veröffentlichung angeben. Die Bewertung ist in fünf Kategorien unterteilt, die im Folgenden vorgestellt werden.
4/4
Introduction
4/4
Accessing Data
4/4
Analysing Data
4/4
Results
3/4
Discussion
Detsky AS, Naylor CD, O'Rourke K, McGeer AJ, L'Abbé KA. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45:255-65
Der Fragilitätsindex ist ein Instrument, das bei der Interpretation signifikanter Ergebnisse hilft und ein Maß für die Stärke eines Ergebnisses liefert. Der Fragilitätsindex gibt die Anzahl der aufeinanderfolgenden Ereignisse an, die zu einem dichotomen Ergebnis hinzugefügt werden müssen, damit das Ergebnis nicht mehr signifikant ist. Eine kleine Zahl steht für ein schwächeres Ergebnis und eine große Zahl für ein stärkeres Ergebnis.
Warum wurde diese Studie jetzt benötigt?
One of the most debated topics in the perioperative management of patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty is blood conservation. More specifically, there is considerable debate about whether autologous blood transfusion drains - a relatively new, expensive technology - offer any significant difference in blood management than standard closed-suction drains or no drain at all. Despite the previous randomized controlled trials conducted on the topic, there is currently a lack of a comprehensive review to base clinical decisions upon.
Was war die wichtigste Forschungsfrage?
In total knee arthroplasty, is there any significant difference in efficacy and safety between autologous blood transfusion and either closed-suction drainage or no drainage?
- There was a significantly lower incidence of allogenic blood transfusions among autologous blood transfusion systems groups compared to closed suction drainage groups (10 studies; OR 0.28 [95%CI 0.14-0.55]; p=0.0002); the difference between autologous blood transfusion systems and no drainage groups was not significant (5 studies; OR 0.73 [95%CI 0.47-1.13]; p=0.16).
- In analyses of hemoglobin levels between 3-5 days postoperatively, no significant differences were observed between autologous blood transfusion systems versus closed suction drainage (3 studies; MD 0.25 [95%CI -0.06, 0.56]; p=0.12), or autologous blood transfusion systems versus no drainage (2 studies; MD 0.41 [95%CI -0.26, 1.09]; p=0.23).
- No significant difference was observed in the length of hospital stay in analyses of autologous blood transfusion systems versus closed suction drainage (3 studies; MD -0.96 [95%CI -2.09, 0.17]; p=0.10), or autologous blood transfusion systems versus no drainage (2 studies; MD 0.07 [95%CI -0.67, 0.81]; p=0.85).
- No significant difference was observed in the incidence of wound infection in analyses of autologous blood transfusion systems versus closed suction drainage (3 studies; OR 0.98 [95%CI 0.40-2.38]; p=0.97), or autologous blood transfusion systems versus no drainage (1 study; OR 1.01 [95%CI 0.06-16.27]; p=1.00).
Was sollte ich mir besonders merken?
In total knee arthroplasty, autologous blood transfusion systems demonstrated a significantly lower requirement of allogenic transfusion when compared to groups managed with standard closed suction drainage, however, there was no significant difference when compared management without drainage. Postoperative hemoglobin levels, length of hospital stay, and the incidence of wound infection did not significantly differ when compared between autologous blood transfusion systems and closed suction drainage, or autologous blood transfusion systems and no drainage.
Wie wird sich dies auf die Behandlung meiner Patienten auswirken?
The results of this study suggest that there may be an advantage to using autotransfusion systems over closed suction drains when considering allogenic transfusion rate, though similar efficacy and safety between these two options was observed in all other outcomes studied. Additionally, no significant difference in any outcome measure was observed for autotransfusion compared to no drain use. Therefore, the question becomes whether the autotransfusion systems should be considered for routine use in the absence of a significant advantage over simply not using a drain, given the added expense of using autotransfusion systems.
HAFTUNGSAUSSCHLUSS
Der Inhalt dieser Seite dient nur zu Informationszwecken und ist nicht als Ersatz für professionelle medizinische Beratung, Diagnose oder Behandlung gedacht. Wenn Sie eine medizinische Behandlung benötigen, wenden Sie sich immer an Ihren Arzt oder suchen Sie die nächstgelegene Notaufnahme auf. Die Meinungen, Überzeugungen und Standpunkte, die von den Personen auf dieser Seite geäußert werden, spiegeln nicht die Meinungen, Überzeugungen und Standpunkte von OrthoEvidence wider.
0 von 4 monatliche KOSTENLOSE Artikel freigeschaltet
